Gabriel Fernando-Pulido v. William Barr

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 13 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GABRIEL FERNANDO-PULIDO, AKA No. 17-70259 Luis Gerardo Diaz Ortiz, Agency No. A096-549-910 Petitioner, v. MEMORANDUM* WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, Respondent. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Submitted February 11, 2020** Pasadena, California Before: BERZON, R. NELSON, and LEE, Circuit Judges. Gabriel Fernando-Pulido petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision to affirm the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). We review such denials for substantial evidence and will only reverse if the evidence “compels” a contrary * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). result. Silva-Pereira v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 1176, 1184 (9th Cir. 2016); Parussimova v. Mukasey, 555 F.3d 734, 738–39 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny the petition. 1. Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s determination that there was no nexus between Fernando-Pulido’s feared harm and his kinship ties, which is required for asylum and withholding of removal claims. See Guo v. Sessions, 897 F.3d 1208, 1213 (9th Cir. 2018). While Fernando-Pulido’s family members have apparently suffered a series of tragic events, they do not appear to be related to each other. Nor do they suggest that Fernando-Pulido himself may face persecution based on these kinship ties. Fernando-Pulido alleges that his grandmother was murdered, but he admits that he does not know why she was killed. Fernando-Pulido also states that his aunt was kidnapped, but his testimony conflicts with his aunt’s testimony about who carried out the kidnapping. Finally, Fernando-Pulido himself admitted to the BIA that there was no indication that the man who threatened his brother had any connection with the other men who allegedly harmed his family. 2. Substantial evidence also supports the denial of CAT relief. To qualify for CAT relief, an alien must establish a likelihood of torture if removed to the proposed country of removal. Cole v. Holder, 659 F.3d 762, 770 (9th Cir. 2011). Torture requires the harm to be “inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official 2 capacity.” 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18(a)(1). There is little evidence in the record that the men who murdered Pulido’s grandmother were related to the government. Indeed, Fernando-Pulido himself admits that he does not have any proof of that beyond his testimony, which is based on secondhand information from his mother and aunt. PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED 3 17-70259 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ca9 9th Cir. Gabriel Fernando-Pulido v. William Barr 13 February 2020 Agency Unpublished 63664a9ec6c907bfee55ce9dc29cdca8c6c0932d

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals